You know full well that the government is not going to stop giving marriage licenses, and tax breaks to EVERYONE. I agree, that is the best solution, but we don't live in that kind of a "perfect" world. It FAR too dificult to take away privilages that people have gotten used to. Try taking away straight couples tax breaks, and THEN watch all hell break loose! If you offered people the choice between giving gays marriage licenses, and all the benefits that come with that, OR taking away all the benefits that come with marriage licenses for everyone, I think you'll agree that gays would be getting married faster than you can say "tax break".

It boils down to the fact is straight people can get a piece of paper that says they're entitled to 100's of rights (many of which are financial - others not) that my partner and I are not, for no other reason than that we're gay. No matter how you slice it, that's not right. Any straight couple, even complete strangers can walk into a town hall and get that piece of paper, yet committed couples that have been together for decades cannot. How can you defend that without bringing God into it?

the foundations of the Constitution are based on the Judeo Christian value system.

That is the biggest UNTRUTH ever to come from the Christian Right. The majority of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a higher power, but thought the idea of Jesus' divinity was absurd. Please read this page: http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

Now, let's pretend and say they WERE Christians. Even then, they had the wonderful idea to say that government shoudl be completely separate from religion. Therefore, any laws or morals based solely upon religion are illegal under our constitution.

In reply to:

All I ask is that they don't do it on the front porch in front of the kiddies.

There are probably more straight couples who have sex in front of kiddies than gay people. You're trying to paint homosexuals as criminals here.

_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Spiff... I totally reject the notion that we will never get to what I posted. In 1995, the IRS had the power to find you guilty until you proved yourself innocent.

Congress overturned that law in 1997.

EVERYONE thought that was impossible.

All it takes is for some people with courage to fight for things like owning our OWN Social Security, a true Flat Tax, eliminating loopholes. Once the American People find they can do their taxes in 15 minutes, and EVERYONE pays a fair share... It will pass. We DO have a Flat 2.8% tax in PA., by the way.

And I remain against what is being proposed as long as all these other painfully expensive laws are on the books. It WILL open too many avenues to abuse.

But, for argument, list the non financial discriminations you have faced, and we can discuss those...

I think people of all sexual preferences should keep it away from children. This is not anti gay in any way, shape, manner, or form.

In reply to:

That is the biggest UNTRUTH ever to come from the Christian Right.

uh... I only go to church for Christmas, weddings, and funerals. The "Christian Right" won't have me.

I said "Judeo christian values" not Christian values. There is NO seperation of church and state. There "shall be no state sponsored religion" is what it says. Restraint from sponsoring religion is not the same as seperating all forms of religion from government.

Instead of just taking the easy route and agreeing to disagree, you should do some research on this. I think that someone has already posted links, but I know that there are letters out there from Madison and the others directly discussing the quandry that you encounter if you involve the church in any aspect of government. The founding fathers may have been god-fearing and the ideas they used may have been judeo-christian in nature, but they were quite detailed in their intent to draw a line of separation between religious influence and the process of governing fairly ALL citizens.

....just a suggestion. Try to separate your concern over the issue of marriage in a religious sense from the governmental designation. I'm not sure that many here are arguing for church-sponsored marriage of gays. As I said before, that is between the church's and their parishioners. What we are talking about is simply the legal union in the eyes of the government and the protections that the government presently affords those designated as "married".

Turbo... The REALLY ironic part of all this. You and Spiff say that church and state should be totally separate... yet you propose that the government INCREASE its role in a religious based institution. Marriage.

It is unlikely to pass, what you seek, not because of religious zealots, but because politicians don't like giving up power. Especially when they don't gain from doing so. Here they won't.

I have yet to talk to anyone who disagrees with the points of owning our own SS... a true flat, fair tax losing the loop holes... etc... it would do what everyone wants... allow freedom of choice.

Under THIS idea... Spiff gets total freedom from government in his personal life, he gets to plan a better life, Why not embrace freedom both in economics and from politicians ?

Likewise I totally reject the notion that Roger and I will never be married.

Here's the complete list of all 1049 rights and responsiblities that I'm not entitled to.

Here's a real world example for you. Roger and I just bought a townhouse as you all probably know. The place is in his and his parents name. If Roger were to die, I'd be out on the street. His parents would take the place over, and I'd be out. One of the advantages of owning rather than renting is that you can right off the interest you pay on your mortage on your taxes. Since the place is in Roger's name, only HE can do that. We'll be paying much more in interest than he'll be able to write off. I on the other hand make considerably more money than Roger. If we'd been able to file jointly, we could have saved a lot more money on taxes this year. Roger's health plan at work sucks. Mine is quite good. Even though my company offers "domestic partner" benefits, if I sign Roger up for insurance, the premium would come out of my check POST tax, as opposed to my bosses wife - her premium gets taken out pre-tax.

I could go on...I know you asked for non-financial issues...but right now I'm getting screwed financially. You'll have to read the .pdf if you want to. There's plenty there.